Reply With Quote
Okay, for one, how can you be sure the number of instants of gun violence in other countries has been recorded or even reported accurately? I'm sure many other countries don't have the resources to keep accurate track over this sort of thing when those resources could be needed elsewhere. And I for one would not trust the US antigun media to report such numbers accurately anyway. Ask yourself this, when's the last time you heard the media reporting about a legally armed citizen using a firearm to save himself or another from criminal violence? It must happen sometime, right? Actually, studies have shown that armed citizens use their legally owned weapons to stop crime against themselves or others, at least four times more than the police use theirs. (I think that percentage is actually higher, but I can't recall it at the moment. Again, the police can't be everywhere - all the time) But you won't hear about that in the media, what you will hear about is the one nutjob who misuses a firearm though - over and over and over again.Originally Posted by Dumbfounded
Second, human nature is or can be violent as a rule under certain circumstances. So what sort of violence replaced gun violence in other countries where guns were not readily available. Is it better to be hacked to death with a machete, rather than be shot? Is violence more humane and doesn't count as much if a hacking, stabbing, strangling, or blunt trama method is used? Hell, I've seen a group of 5 Mexicans (literally) kick the brains out of another Mexican guy with their cowboy boots - because he was dancing with "one of their women". Was that a kinder form of violence because they didn't shoot him?
Third, history has already shown us that disarming the common citizen has lead to governments becoming oppressive. We're already well on that path.
Forth, disarming the public does not mean a lower crime rate. Australia recently made it illegal for common citizens to own any sort of firearm... and the crime rate skyrocketed. In the USA, one town made it mandatory that each household had to have at least one firearm with ammo in it, and crime dropped to record lows.
And consider this, if you were a criminal, where would you feel better practicing your trade:
A - In an area where there was little chance of running into a armed victim because of strict antigun laws
B - In an area where theres a 50/50 chance of running into an armed victim.
C - In an area were residences are required to own at least one gun with ammo. And/or are freely allowed to carry them concealed.
